That's the second positive incentive I mentioned in my earlier post. Such a situation cannot happen without a rule "if you are vaccinated you can remove your mask in some places".nsaspook said:I go to the local Joe's bar with Tom (a person I know and trust) and see fully vaccinated Tom without a mask laughing and talking to fully vaccinated Sally without a mask with little or no risk to COVID-19 but I'm not vaccinated. Sure, I could lie or fake a card but there is a peer based incentive to actually get fully vaccinated for my personal safety.
It's not just four states. It's an obvious correlation across all of them. It also holds on the county level within states. Correlation does not mean causation, but it's a notable pattern.Vanadium 50 said:You mentioned politics and the four states. I think people have been too quick to go there. It is true that these states are blue. Ranked #2, #3, #9 and #17. But it's a mistake to think of New England as homogeneous. You get out of eyeshot of water in Maine and it gets very rural, very poor and very red very fast. Even Massachusetts is relatively red between Worcester and Springfield.
mfb said:That's the second positive incentive I mentioned in my earlier post. Such a situation cannot happen without a rule "if you are vaccinated you can remove your mask in some places".
The other requirement to move to lower risk is that at least 65% of a county's residents 16 or older must have received a first dose of the vaccine. Multnomah County reached that target last week. On Friday, five Oregon counties — Benton, Deschutes, Hood River, Lincoln and Washington — moved to the lower risk level.
Having submitted its vaccine equity plan, the county will now be eligible to move to lower risk on Friday, May 28, which will allow the county to significantly reduce its COVID-19 restrictions. The lower risk level allows a maximum of 50% capacity indoors at restaurants, theaters, gyms and other indoor entertainment spaces. It also expands retail store capacity to 75%.
No, they just have until the pandemic wanes to reverse the hypocrisy. After that it isn't an option anymore.Vanadium 50 said:Well, it lasts until the pandemic wanes.
It's definitely legal, maybe rational, but usually selfish. Most of the pandemic mitigation efforts have been that way. Vaccines, masks, Thanksgiving dinners, protests, personal information sharing...heck, even toilet paper. Much of the story of the pandemic has been the push-pull between making choices that are viewed as best for ones-self vs what is best for society -- and governments' attempts to shape that.(For making legal, and possibly even rational, choices that you and I did not)
Yes, and to be fair the question may already be moot. The 70% threshold is mythical and doesn't include those who have already been infected and are carrying some immunity. Seeing how fast the infection numbers are dropping right now tells me we may already be at the threshold, whatever it is. But still...Vanadium 50 said:Maybe a better question is "how much vaccination do we need?"
To me, the elderly represent an upper bound -- or maybe both at the same time because they are simultaneously the group with the most who shouldn't be vaccinated (<10%?) and the most who should (everyone else). And they are the group with the easiest access the vaccine. For those frail enough to live in congregate care but not frail enough that vaccination itself presents a high risk, the vaccine was literally delivered to their kitchen table. For such people, there wasn't even an opportunity to be ambivalent about the vaccine, it was a binary choice; get it or don't, right now.Vanadium 50 said:I estimate the number of adults who refuse vaccination to be 10%. We know that 85% of 65+ people (who were first in the queue) have received at least one dose, so presumably intend to receive the other (and 87% of them have done so). This is a lower bound, as this group contains a higher fraction of those who shouldn't be vaccinated.
Others have pointed out the political association, but New England is also very white. This isn't just a political issue, it is a demographics issue; vaccine hesitancy is high among blacks and Hispanics as well. And that's definitely not related to rural living, as those groups are concentrated in cities.Vanadium 50 said:We also have four states with >90% vaccination and seven more close to it. So we will end up with:
We're just talking here. I don't see policies in action to actually punish the hesitant/refusers. Really, I see the policy change as letting them off the hook. Maybe the CDC was hoping it would provide an incentive to get vaccinated, but for the refusers I don't think it does.I'm arguing that we should spend less effort of punishment and "prevenge" and instead use that effort in places where it would do more good, even if less emotionally satisfying.
Well...you speculated about the challenges rural areas might face. If such challenges did exist and were a significant factor behind the sharp drop in new vaccinations, I'd think it would be demonstrable and all over the news. While I know we're all speculating here, I think it's unlikely to be a significant issue. There's 14,000 McDonalds in the US and 40,000 chain pharmacies (not sure if Walmart is counted in that number), plus doctors' offices and hospitals. One would need to be really, really rural to lack easy access to a vaccine and I can't see that there would be enough such people to affect the uptake statistics.But I see at least two other reasons. One is that these states are very rural. (Rank #4, 9 and Georgia is #28 with one large city), and we previously discussed the challenges rural areas face.
That's for Pfizer. The minimum Moderna order is 100. I didn't check J&J because who wants a J&J vaccine.The minimum order is ~1200 doses, which may be an issue in rural areas.
Unmasking may not let them off the hook, because with viral mutations, herd immunity becomes less likely, even with 100% vaccination. So if the vaccine is mainly to prevent severe disease, then those who aren't vaccinated will have higher sickness and death rates (until we reach herd immunity against the variants). Of course, the policy is probably not out to get them, it's just that there may be a practical limit to how much some people can be persuaded. Then the policy would be to try to live with their views, as long as the higher rates among unvaccinated don't take up so much resources that others cannot get good care. The people who are punished are those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot for one reason or other.russ_watters said:We're just talking here. I don't see policies in action to actually punish the hesitant/refusers. Really, I see the policy change as letting them off the hook. Maybe the CDC was hoping it would provide an incentive to get vaccinated, but for the refusers I don't think it does.
I agree with pretty much all of that. I'm going to continue wearing a mask indoors in many circumstances for a little while at least (even though officially "fully vaccinated" today), because of a combination of concerns, which you pretty much list. Where the rubber meets the road, what government policy should be focused on is minimizing overall deaths/serious illnesses and what I am personally concerned with is minimizing risk while balancing against freedom*. Or from the other direction; wearing a mask to the supermarket means nothing to me personally, so there is no reason not to keep doing it. The more vigilant we are, the faster the disease numbers drop and the safer it is for all of us.atyy said:Unmasking may not let them off the hook, because with viral mutations, herd immunity becomes less likely, even with 100% vaccination. So if the vaccine is mainly to prevent severe disease, then those who aren't vaccinated will have higher sickness and death rates (until we reach herd immunity against the variants). Of course, the policy is probably not out to get them, it's just that there may be a practical limit to how much some people can be persuaded. Then the policy would be to try to live with their views, as long as the higher rates among unvaccinated don't take up so much resources that others cannot get good care. The people who are punished are those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot for one reason or other.
Maybe there's no gamesmanship - this is the endgame. Let's say there are no anti-vaxxers, then the endgame could still be all vaccinated can be unmasked, while those who are not vaccinated (for medical reasons) should remain masked to protect themselves (here I'm assuming the vaccinated might be asymptomatic carriers). Of course these same people should also be careful when they interact with their vaccinated relatives (since they can be asymptomatic carriers).russ_watters said:*Like V50 I don't like government gamesmanship (even if we set aside the politicizing). I think it is counter-productive/ineffective, especially in this case. The people the government is trying to game are the ones already primed to distrust government and detect/reject the gamesmanship. Oh -- and unethical/corrupt too. Yeah, there's that.
If everyone were vaccine urgent-ers, we would not have seen the drastic drop-off in the vaccination rate over the past few weeks. People would still be lined-up around the block to get their first dose (actually, by now we'd be starting to run out of people eligible/able if that were the case).atyy said:Maybe there's no gamesmanship - this is the endgame. Let's say there are no anti-vaxxers, then the endgame could still be all vaccinated can be unmasked, while those who are not vaccinated (for medical reasons) should remain masked to protect themselves (here I'm assuming the vaccinated might be asymptomatic carriers). Of course these same people should also be careful when they interact with their vaccinated relatives (since they can be asymptomatic carriers).
What I mean is that the reasonable endgame may be the same regardless of how enthusiastic people are to get vaccinated. If so, the question is whether now is too early to be playing the endgame.russ_watters said:If everyone were vaccine urgent-ers, we would not have seen the drastic drop-off in the vaccination rate over the past few weeks. People would still be lined-up around the block to get their first dose (actually, by now we'd be starting to run out of people eligible/able if that were the case).
Well, at least that has hopefully taught policy-makers that lying is counterproductive (in most cases, maybe there are exceptions for spies or witness protection programs?).russ_watters said:But more to the point, we know there's gamesmanship. There has been from the beginning, and it hasn't been unique to a political persuasion - the original 'masks don't help' position is an example. Governments are trying to coerce the actions they want to see, for the benefits they are trying to produce. Even today, democratic governments think it is ok to lie if they have the best interests of their people at heart. That position/reality should terrify us. It's exactly the opposite of what democratic governments are supposed to be about.
What really terrifies me is that they just found sufficient support from the scientific community for those claims.russ_watters said:Even today, democratic governments think it is ok to lie if they have the best interests of their people at heart. That position/reality should terrify us. It's exactly the opposite of what democratic governments are supposed to be about.
mfb said:
That's pretty much where we are here. Five days ago I saw a walk-in turned away. At that time, you had to wait until early June for your turn. The only signs of slowing I see is that in the last five days the date of first dose availability has only slid back maybe 3 days.russ_watters said:People would still be lined-up around the block to get their first dose
russ_watters said:Even today, democratic governments think it is ok to lie if they have the best interests of their people at heart.
I share your skepticism of correlation = causation assumptions and statistics with difficult to define "estimated" values, but here we do have something more concrete: survey data where people are directly asked their position/intentions. One was linked in the article:Vanadium 50 said:2. In their figure "vaccine hesitancy" is an estimate. They were perfectly free to pick any estimate - or for that matter, definition - that they wanted.
3, Sure vaccination rates are correlated with politics. Vaccination rates are correlated with urbanization, and urbanization is correlated with politics. We have already discussed some of the challenges faced by rural areas. To then conclude that it's politics that drives this, in spite of all that, without any evidence because it's "obvious" may be many things, but it is not science.
No, we're way past that (nationally anyway). The rates aren't constant, they are decreasing. Not constant-decreasing, actually decreasing-decreasing. First vaccinations are down. Second vaccinations are down. Total vaccinations are down. A lot:It's also worth pointing out that keeping the vaccination rate constant requires a doubling of production and distribution compared to what it was 28 (or 21) days ago. Thus far, that seems to be happening (at least locally), but if it plateaus, Dose 1 rates will have to drop to accommodate Dose 2. That's just unitarity.
I am guessing it could be access to the vaccine (not all social groups have equal access),Vanadium 50 said:(1) Whites and non-whites answered "likely never get" about the same rate (22% vs 20%). However, non-white vaccination rates are 3/4 that of the average. Why is that?
Possibly, some feel they are too busy taking care of the kids to do that extra stuff.Vanadium 50 said:(2) Having children in the home makes one more likely to say "likely never get" rather than less. (28% vs. 19%) Why is that?
A couple of speculations:Vanadium 50 said:Thanks for posting the Monmouth study. I agree, having created it six weeks ago, in the midst of the J&J scare, probably matters. But it opens up some very interesting questions:
(1) Whites and non-whites answered "likely never get" about the same rate (22% vs 20%). However, non-white vaccination rates are 3/4 that of the average. Why is that?
Age. Almost nobody 65+ has children at home and they are the lowest "likely never get" respondents. Parents with kids at home (20s to 50s?) are near the sweet spot for that stat based on age (35-54; 32%).Vanadium 50 said:(2) Having children in the home makes one more likely to say "likely never get" rather than less. (28% vs. 19%) Why is that?
The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.
“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies wane quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived,” said senior author Ali Ellebedy, PhD, an associate professor of pathology & immunology, of medicine and of molecular microbiology. “But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”
Kind of, I think. Maybe.AlexCaledin said:- or maybe that's evidence of some permanent virus presence?
Natural cellular T cell defense is underated:https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-...n-why-immunity-is-about-more-than-antibodies/. A high proportion of CD8+Tcell responses was observed in patients who only developed mild disease. Another study has shown that 93% of exposed asymptomatic individuals* had T cell response to CoV-2. *Relatives of confirmed cases. Also potential for cross reactive Tcell recognition between circulating common cold coronaviruses and CoV-2 was shown. So this may explain the differences in individual exposures/infections.Rive said:Kind of, I think. Maybe.
In this context 'immunity' is misleading. The latest developments may suggest that with time Covid really can become something like a cold: not through mutations 'pacifying' it (as it was often brought up at the beginning of the pandemic) , but through a fast response of a trained immune system stopping it becoming serious.
So it's not he classic 'immunity 'one would expect.
This is likely to change as new viral variants evolve. However, while reinfections will become increasingly common, the immunity from the first infection will probably still protect against severe disease.nsaspook said:
I agree. And doesn't it make more sense to devote resources to vaccinating people who want it rather than on convincing/coercing/punishing those who don't?BillTre said:I am guessing it could be access to the vaccine (not all social groups have equal access),
or perhaps a difference in the amount of difficulty in getting to vaccination locations.
Certainly, until all the people that want it are vaccinated. If that is good enough, then it can be left at that. If not, then society will need to decide what to do. My suggestion is simply for them to have a chat with a doctor. Beyond that is something I am not comfortable with and will need to see how it plays out.Vanadium 50 said:I agree. And doesn't it make more sense to devote resources to vaccinating people who want it rather than on convincing/coercing/punishing those who don't?
What if the doctors don't want to see anyone who isn't vaccinated?bhobba said:Certainly, until all the people that want it are vaccinated. If that is good enough, then it can be left at that. If not, then society will need to decide what to do. My suggestion is simply for them to have a chat with a doctor. Beyond that is something I am not comfortable with and will need to see how it plays out.
Thanks
Bill
Here in Aus, they are only starting mass vaccination centres now. At the moment, nearly everyone does what I did. I went to my doctor, who explained the risk vs reward. I already knew the issues, except one. The pill has a 1 in 1000 chance of causing a thrombosis, 3% of which are fatal or 30 in a million chance of dying. Of course, being a man it was not an issue, but still interesting. You can go to a vaccination centre or a doctor (for free). As my doctor explained, it was a standard speil they were required to explain to everyone. So doctors are seeing tons of unvaccinated people right now. Nothing would happen that is different. Once the risk vs reward is explained, the patient makes the decision. All I am saying is, once all the people that want vaccination are finished, those hesitant are asked to speak to a doctor. I am uncomfortable with forcing them, but we will have to see how this plays out. Voluntary compliance is always preferable.PeroK said:What if the doctors don't want to see anyone who isn't vaccinated?
I am not happy with forcing anyone to do anything in general. Of course, there are times where it is necessary. I am not happy with forcing doctors to see unvaccinated patients. But in practice, I have not heard of it being an issue. Certainly, none of the doctors at my clinic has any issues.PeroK said:My point was that you are happy forcing medical staff to see unvaccinated patients! They may object - you never know!
I deleted that post. There is too much uncertainty to have a meaningful debate. Not to mention that Australia and the UK have had very different experiences of COVID.bhobba said:I am not happy with forcing anyone to do anything in general. Of course, there are times where it is necessary. I am not happy with forcing doctors to see unvaccinated patients. But in practice, I have not heard of it being an issue. Certainly, none of the doctors at my clinic has any issues.
Thanks
Bill
These efforts are not mutually exclusive.Vanadium 50 said:I agree. And doesn't it make more sense to devote resources to vaccinating people who want it rather than on convincing/coercing/punishing those who don't?
Well, we're just talking/predicting here. As far as I can tell there has only been a little bit of convincing (TV ads, freebies, the dumb new mask policy) and no coercing or punishing. Some businesses may mandate vaccination (Penn Medicine has announced they will) and maybe some schools, but if the infection numbers keep falling and/or we hit the mythical 70% goal, we'll probably drop the whole thing. Mobile clinics are a good idea. Gift cards and lottery tickets too. Since schools/colleges are starting to let out just as kids become eligible, offering the vaccine for them at school in the fall would be good.Vanadium 50 said:I agree. And doesn't it make more sense to devote resources to vaccinating people who want it rather than on convincing/coercing/punishing those who don't?
-- https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...lian-state-of-victoria-to-enter-7day-lockdownThe number of positive COVID-19 case numbers in Melbourne continues to rise and was at 34 at 1pm (NZ time) according to Health Victoria.
...
The cases in the Melbourne cluster have the B1.617 variant, which was first identified in India. This variant was previously described by Kiwi academics as "worrying" as it includes two mutations. These escape mutations have the ability to slip past the body's immune defences.
It’s an option to create separate sections for those who are vaccinated and those who aren’t. The idea is that unvaccinated people would be required to be socially distant and masked, while vaccinated individuals would be free to gather closely without their masks.
“We will see an effect of really separating people,” said Aimee Huff, an assistant professor of marketing at the College of Business at Oregon State University, during an interview Wednesday.
...
The latest shift in Oregon rules is again leaving people and businesses with mixed feelings, confusion and uncertainty about ramifications.
“What we expect to see, is that some segments of shoppers will intentionally seek out businesses whose vaccine policies align with their own individual preferences around the vaccine and political ideologies,” Huff said.